The impact of the Biden administration’s policies is still being felt. Many individuals are struggling with the economic downturn, damage to their reputations, and various cancellation efforts linked to the actions of the Justice Department. There’s a sense that President Trump’s Justice Department could step in to address some of these issues, but it hasn’t happened yet.
A significant number of voters support Trump mainly because he vowed to demilitarize government actions and restore electoral integrity. Unfortunately, he hasn’t fully delivered on that promise. This situation has left some of his most ardent supporters uneasy, potentially prompting them to avoid participating in major elections, including the midterms, out of concern that the cycle might repeat itself. As we approach another crucial election period, it feels quite lopsided, almost as if we’re not fully prepared.
It’s worth noting that not everyone in the Justice Department agrees with the president’s pardon decisions, and this disagreement often manifests as a lack of initiative.
This predicament is especially clear when considering the 2020 electors. Many are still facing accusations related to their actions in the wake of the 2020 presidential election—allegations of collecting electoral rolls as part of ongoing fraud investigations and lawsuits. While preparing conditional slates for Congress has been a longstanding practice in American politics, the Biden administration’s efforts to criminalize such bipartisan actions, which have a historical precedent over 100 years, exemplifies pure politicization.
Last November, I discussed Trump’s landmark pardons for individuals implicated in state crimes associated with the 2020 election. It’s not typical for a presidential pardon to cover state matters, but the rationale was apparent. Federal election-related actions are constitutionally protected, and state officials were merely pawns in a broader scheme. It was, I think, a legally sound and prudent move by Trump. The “No MAGA Left Behind” slogan truly resonates with those who’ve risked the most and suffered significant consequences.
What transpired afterward—or rather, what didn’t—is what turned something “abnormal” into “bizarre.”
After Trump’s pardon was issued late on a Sunday night in November 2025, the Justice Department chose not to respond. Beyond a few remarks from pardon attorney Ed Martin, there’s been virtually no comment. When reporters sought clarification, the department’s retort was essentially a dismissal: “not our problem.”
In reality, that should be a concern for them.
Silence is troubling enough, but inaction is far worse. The government should actively intervene to halt ongoing state actions and utilize pardons as leverage to counter prosecutions that defy federal authority or constitutional protections. We know this tactic can be effective; for instance, shortly after the pardon, Georgia dropped its charges against Trump, referencing the complications that arose from the pardon.
Even more troubling is the fact that not all Justice Department officials concur with the president’s pardon decisions, and this lack of consensus results in noticeable inertia.
We’ve observed similar patterns elsewhere: Trump reportedly demoted Biden’s autopen decision as being invalid, yet the government continues to release violent offenders under questionable pardons. Lawyers might disagree, but they can’t refuse to execute lawful presidential directives.
When the Justice Department struggles to follow through on straightforward matters, it raises skepticism about its ability to address more complex issues. A year into Trump’s administration, we really need to focus on accountability for those who wielded the weapons and find ways to address the grievances of those impacted.
It’s essential to get the blame train back on track. The first step is fairly simple: the Department of Justice needs to comply with the president’s explicit orders.
